SMIC Reports 2008 Fourth Quarter Results

Investors should consider the information contained in SMIC's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including its annual report on 20-F, as amended, filed with the SEC on November 28, 2008, especially in the "Risk Factors" and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" sections, and such other documents that SMIC may file with the SEC or SEHK from time to time, including on Form 6-K. Other unknown or unpredictable factors also could have material adverse effects on SMIC's future results, performance or achievements. In light of these risks, uncertainties, assumptions and factors, the forward-looking events discussed in this press release may not occur. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date stated, or if no date is stated, as of the date of this press release. Except as required by law, SMIC undertakes no obligation and does not intend to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Material Litigation

Recent TSMC Legal Developments:

On August 25, 2006, TSMC filed a lawsuit against the Company and certain subsidiaries (SMIC (Shanghai), SMIC (Beijing) and SMIC (Americas)) in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda for alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement, alleged breach of promissory notes and alleged trade secret misappropriation by the Company. TSMC seeks, among other things, damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and the acceleration of the remaining payments outstanding under the Settlement Agreement.

In the present litigation, TSMC alleges that the Company has incorporated TSMC trade secrets in the manufacture of the Company's 0.13 micron or smaller process products. TSMC further alleges that as a result of this claimed breach, TSMC's patent license is terminated and the covenant not to sue is no longer in effect with respect to the Company's larger process products.

The Company has vigorously denied all allegations of misappropriation. The Court has made no finding that TSMC's claims are valid. The Court has set a trial date of September 1, 2009.

On September 13, 2006, the Company announced that in addition to filing a response strongly denying the allegations of TSMC in the United States lawsuit, it filed on September 12, 2006, a cross-complaint against TSMC seeking, among other things, damages for TSMC's breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On November 16, 2006, the High Court in Beijing, the People's Republic of China, accepted the filing of a complaint by the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, SMIC (Shanghai) and SMIC (Beijing), regarding the unfair competition arising from the breach of bona fide (i.e. integrity, good faith) principle and commercial defamation by TSMC ("PRC Complaint"). In the PRC Complaint, the Company is seeking, among other things, an injunction to stop TSMC's infringing acts, public apology from TSMC to the Company and compensation from TSMC to the Company, including profits gained by TSMC from their infringing acts.

TSMC filed with the California court in January 2007 a motion seeking to enjoin the PRC action. In February 2007, TSMC filed with the Beijing High Court a jurisdictional objection, challenging the competency of the Beijing High Court's jurisdiction over the PRC action.

In March 2007, the California Court denied TSMC's motion to enjoin the PRC action. TSMC appealed this ruling to California Court of Appeal. On March 26, 2008, the Court of Appeal, in a written opinion, denied TSMC's appeal.

In July 2007, the Beijing High Court denied TSMC's jurisdictional objection and issued a court order holding that the Beijing High Court shall have proper jurisdiction to try the PRC action. TSMC appealed this order to the Supreme Court of the People's Republic of China. On January 7, 2008, the Supreme Court heard TSMC's appeal. On June 13, 2008, the Supreme Court denied TSMC's appeal and affirmed the jurisdiction of the Beijing High Court.

On August 14, 2007, the Company filed an amended cross-complaint against TSMC seeking, among other things, damages for TSMC's breach of contract and breach of patent license agreement. TSMC thereafter denied the allegations of the Company's amended cross-complaint and subsequently filed additional claims that the Company breached the Settlement Agreement by filing an action in the Beijing High Court. The Company has denied these additional claims by TSMC.

On August 15-17, 2007, the California Court held a preliminary injunction hearing on TSMC's motion to enjoin use of certain process recipes in certain of the Company's 0.13 micron logic process flows.

On September 7, 2007, the Court denied TSMC's preliminary injunction motion, thereby leaving unaffected the Company's development and sales. However, the court required the Company to provide 10 days' advance notice to TSMC if the Company plans to disclose logic technology to non-SMIC entities under certain circumstances, to allow TSMC to object to the planned disclosure.

On March 11, 2008, TSMC filed an application for a right to attach order in the California Court. By its application, TSMC sought an order securing an amount equal to the remaining balance on the promissory notes issued by the Company in connection with the Settlement Agreement. The Company opposed the application. A hearing was held on April 3, 2008. On June 24, 2008, the Court denied TSMC's application.

In May 2008, TSMC filed a motion in the California Court for summary adjudication against the Company on several of the Company's cross claims. The Company opposed the motion and on August 6, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part TSMC's motion.

On June 23, 2008, the Company filed in the California court a cross-complaint against TSMC seeking, among other things, damages for TSMC's unlawful misappropriation of trade secrets from SMIC to improve its competitive position against SMIC.

On July 10, 2008, the California Court held a preliminary injunction hearing on TSMC's motion to enjoin disclosure of information on certain process recipes in the Company's 0.30 micron logic process flows to 3rd parties. On August 8, 2008, the Court granted-in-part TSMC's motion and preliminarily enjoined SMIC from disclosing fourteen 0.30 um process steps. On October 3, 2008, SMIC filed a notice of appeal of the Court's August 8, 2008 Order with the California Court of Appeal.

During the pre-trial proceedings in the matter, questions have arisen regarding the actual terms of the 2005 Settlement Agreement between SMIC and TSMC, and regarding whether a valid agreement was executed by the parties. In light of recent disclosures made in the case, SMIC is now of the view that the Settlement Agreement attached as an exhibit to the Company's 2005 Form 20-F does not correctly reflect the terms of an agreement between the parties. From January 13-16, 2009, the California Superior Court held trial to determine (a) if a valid agreement exists between the parties and, if so, (b) the terms of such agreement. When issued, these determinations might materially impact our financial statements and our financial position and results of operations both historically and prospectively.

The Court has scheduled a trial upon all liability issues related to a selected list of TSMC trade secret claims and SMIC trade secret claims to commence on September 1, 2009.

Under the provisions of SFAS 144, the Company is required to make a determination as to whether or not this pending litigation represents an event that requires a further analysis of whether the patent license portfolio has been impaired. We believe that the lawsuit is at a preliminary stage and we are still evaluating whether or not the litigation represents such an event. The Company expects further information to become available to us, which will aid us in making a determination. The outcome of any impairment analysis performed under SFAS 144 might result in a material impact to our financial position and results of operations. Because the case is in its preliminary stage, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or to estimate the amount or range of potential loss.

Summary of Fourth Quarter 2008 Operating Results

« Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  Next Page »

Rating:


Review Article Be the first to review this article
CST Webinar Series

EMA:

Featured Video
Editorial
Peggy AycinenaWhat Would Joe Do?
by Peggy Aycinena
Retail Therapy: Jump starting Black Friday
Peggy AycinenaIP Showcase
by Peggy Aycinena
REUSE 2016: Addressing the Four Freedoms
More Editorial  
Jobs
Development Engineer-WEB SKILLS +++ for EDA Careers at North Valley, CA
Manager, Field Applications Engineering for Real Intent at Sunnyvale, CA
AE-APPS SUPPORT/TMM for EDA Careers at San Jose-SOCAL-AZ, CA
FAE FIELD APPLICATIONS SAN DIEGO for EDA Careers at San Diego, CA
Principal Circuit Design Engineer for Rambus at Sunnyvale, CA
ACCOUNT MANAGER MUNICH GERMANY EU for EDA Careers at MUNICH, Germany
Upcoming Events
Zuken Innovation World 2017, April 24 - 26, 2017, Hilton Head Marriott Resort & Spa in Hilton Head Island, SC at Hilton Head Marriott Resort & Spa Hilton Head Island NC - Apr 24 - 26, 2017
CST Webinar Series



Internet Business Systems © 2016 Internet Business Systems, Inc.
595 Millich Dr., Suite 216, Campbell, CA 95008
+1 (408)-337-6870 — Contact Us, or visit our other sites:
AECCafe - Architectural Design and Engineering TechJobsCafe - Technical Jobs and Resumes GISCafe - Geographical Information Services  MCADCafe - Mechanical Design and Engineering ShareCG - Share Computer Graphic (CG) Animation, 3D Art and 3D Models
  Privacy Policy